April 14, 2008

"Building Baby from the Genes Up"

Ronald M. Green, professor of Ethics at Dartmouth College, authored an opinions column for The Washington Post over the weekend entitled "Building Baby from the Genes Up" (April 13). While acknowledging the concerns of those leery of eugenic "slippery slopes," Green hails the possibilities of diminishing illness and disabilities via genetic technologies.

From "Building Baby from the Genes Up," by Ronald M. Green:

"Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, our understanding of the genetic bases of human disease and non-disease traits has been growing almost exponentially. The National Institutes of Health has initiated a quest for the "$1,000 genome," a 10-year program to develop machines that could identify all the genetic letters in anyone's genome at low cost (it took more than $3 billion to sequence the first human genome). With this technology, which some believe may be just four or five years away, we could not only scan an individual's -- or embryo's -- genome, we could also rapidly compare thousands of people and pinpoint those DNA sequences or combinations that underlie the variations that contribute to our biological differences.

With knowledge comes power. If we understand the genetic causes of obesity, for example, we can intervene by means of embryo selection to produce a child with a reduced genetic likelihood of getting fat. Eventually, without discarding embryos at all, we could use gene-targeting techniques to tweak fetal DNA sequences. No child would have to face a lifetime of dieting or experience the health and cosmetic problems associated with obesity. The same is true for cognitive problems..."

2 Comments

Genetics is hardly the only/predominant factor in obesity, or many other conditions (e.g. autism). Andrew Weil MD has stressed this repeatedly in his columns. The 'expert' at Dartmouth would do well to ask himself why many autistic children do better when gluten, dairy, and excessive sugar is removed from their diets. If people reduced/eliminated high-glycemic foods (corn syrup, white flour, potatoes, etc.) from their diets,as well as toxic foods (e.g. 29% of the general population has anti-gliadin antibodies, i.e. they cannot tolerate wheat/barley/rye; per research by Kenneth Fine MD), and concentrated on vegetables, fruits, nuts, and lean meats, there WOULD be a big change.

I wouldn't mind seeing fatal flaws corrected, i.e. things that would cause the child to die shortly after birth, but I'd like to see most genetic diversity preserved since we don't really know what the future will require of us. Any species capable of modifying its genome should first fully understand why the genome developed such variations and how they might be useful before attempting to modify them. For example, we know that sickle cell anemia and thalassemia protect against malaria, and that diabetes developed to favor survival under conditions of famine. It is not inconceivable that in our effort to stamp out a certain gene strand in humans that might be considered harmful, we might hypothetically eliminate a means of resisting AIDS. Therefore, only the most serious things (those that are fatal) should be considered.

Frankie Mastrangelo is the moderator for both the Justice For All (JFA) national email listerv as well as for the JFActivist blog. She is also an organizer for the American Association of People with Disabilities in Washington, D.C.